08 March 2008

Trop Beau Pour Toi: Does America Deserve Obama?

"Trop Belle Pour Toi" was a mostly forgettable 1989 film starring Gerard Depardieu, Carole Bouquet, and Josiane Balasko. In which Depardieu's character inexplicably throws away his marriage with picture-perfect Bouquet for a fling with rather "dumpy" (as Roger Ebert describes her) secretary Balasko. Bouquet, in her perfection, was "Too Beautiful For You."

As we enter what may be the longest six weeks in recent American political history before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, just how excruciatingly painful will it be? Barack Obama has just had to accept the resignation of his Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign policy advisor Dr. Samantha Power for having used the "m" word about rival Hillary Clinton - surely worse unmentionable nouns have been on Obama camp lips? "Monster" is pretty tame in the greater scheme of political insults, and perhaps Power thought that by resigning she might spark a sense of "do the right thing" in the Clinton stable of campaign advisers. In your dreams.

Here's today's Bob Herbert Op-ed in the NYT, in which Senator Clinton is confronted with another "m" word:

And then there was Mrs. Clinton on “60 Minutes,” being interviewed by Steve Kroft. He had shown a clip on the program of a voter in Ohio who said that he’d heard that Senator Obama didn’t know the national anthem, “wouldn’t use the Holy Bible,” and was a Muslim.

Mr. Kroft asked Senator Clinton if she believed that Senator Obama is a Muslim. In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: “No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.”

As far as I know.

If she had been asked if she thought President Bush was a Muslim, would her response have included the caveat “as far as I know”? What about Senator McCain? Why, then, with Senator Obama?

It must be one of the lowest points of this campaign, that respected rising star Senator Barack Obama is repeatedly forced to explain his religious origins/beliefs - and feels compelled to paraphrase a mantra redolent of the bad old McCarthy blacklisting days: "I am not, nor have ever been, a member of the... ." Talk about the precedent-setting nature of a woman or an African-American president: the day that a Muslim-American will have a serious run on the White House will be the day that American acceptance of "diversity" will be truly tested.

Don't try to read too much into my "Trop Belle" analogy (no, Hillary Clinton is not "dumpy," and John McCain is not Gerard Depardieu). But given the essentially good choices confronting the American electorate (if you doubt that, consider some of those who have dropped out of the race), is Barack Obama "Trop Beau" - too upright, too principled, not "down and dirty" enough - for the US Presidency? Are expectations so low for Hillary Clinton's nastiness that she gets away with slurring her Democratic rival? The old truism, "you get the leaders you deserve" - is it self-fulfilling? Is Barack Obama constitutionally capable of tit for tat?

As president, Obama would set a new tone in US politics. He refuses to demonise his political opponents; deep in his heart, I believe, he doesn't even think of them as opponents. It would not be surprising to find Republicans and independents prominent in his administration. Obama wants to know what ideas are likely to work, not whether a Democrat or a Republican is responsible for them.

In his book The Audacity of Hope, he asks for a politics that accepts "the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point". Remarking that ordinary Americans "don't always understand the arguments between right and left, conservative and liberal", Obama wants politicians "to catch up with them".

In short, Obama's own approach is insistently charitable. He assumes decency and good faith on the part of those who disagree with him. And he wants to hear what they have to say. Both in substance and in tone, Obama questions the conventional political distinctions between "the left" and "the right". To the extent that he is attracting support from Republicans and independents, it is largely for this reason.

While Barack Obama has penned The Audacity of Hope, the New York Times' Gail Collins opines that Hillary Clinton only understands the "audacity of audacity." Pyhrric victories the Democrats do not need. Here's a reader's comment (my translation) on a "Le Monde" article on the asymmetric (in terms of playing dirty) Clinton-Obama campaigns:

The Democrats' ability to shoot themselves in the foot, not just with a single round but with an entire magazine, is mind-boggling. Americans have a choice between a woman, a black man, and an old man. The odds are that they'll choose the latter.

The biggest danger to the Democrats is that if voters - especially the millions of young Obama supporters who have helped set primary turnout records - are turned off by internecine warfare, those who can still bring themselves to vote in November may go for an above-the-fray John McCain.

Comments

Trop Beau Pour Toi: Does America Deserve Obama?

"Trop Belle Pour Toi" was a mostly forgettable 1989 film starring Gerard Depardieu, Carole Bouquet, and Josiane Balasko. In which Depardieu's character inexplicably throws away his marriage with picture-perfect Bouquet for a fling with rather "dumpy" (as Roger Ebert describes her) secretary Balasko. Bouquet, in her perfection, was "Too Beautiful For You."

As we enter what may be the longest six weeks in recent American political history before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, just how excruciatingly painful will it be? Barack Obama has just had to accept the resignation of his Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign policy advisor Dr. Samantha Power for having used the "m" word about rival Hillary Clinton - surely worse unmentionable nouns have been on Obama camp lips? "Monster" is pretty tame in the greater scheme of political insults, and perhaps Power thought that by resigning she might spark a sense of "do the right thing" in the Clinton stable of campaign advisers. In your dreams.

Here's today's Bob Herbert Op-ed in the NYT, in which Senator Clinton is confronted with another "m" word:

And then there was Mrs. Clinton on “60 Minutes,” being interviewed by Steve Kroft. He had shown a clip on the program of a voter in Ohio who said that he’d heard that Senator Obama didn’t know the national anthem, “wouldn’t use the Holy Bible,” and was a Muslim.

Mr. Kroft asked Senator Clinton if she believed that Senator Obama is a Muslim. In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: “No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.”

As far as I know.

If she had been asked if she thought President Bush was a Muslim, would her response have included the caveat “as far as I know”? What about Senator McCain? Why, then, with Senator Obama?

It must be one of the lowest points of this campaign, that respected rising star Senator Barack Obama is repeatedly forced to explain his religious origins/beliefs - and feels compelled to paraphrase a mantra redolent of the bad old McCarthy blacklisting days: "I am not, nor have ever been, a member of the... ." Talk about the precedent-setting nature of a woman or an African-American president: the day that a Muslim-American will have a serious run on the White House will be the day that American acceptance of "diversity" will be truly tested.

Don't try to read too much into my "Trop Belle" analogy (no, Hillary Clinton is not "dumpy," and John McCain is not Gerard Depardieu). But given the essentially good choices confronting the American electorate (if you doubt that, consider some of those who have dropped out of the race), is Barack Obama "Trop Beau" - too upright, too principled, not "down and dirty" enough - for the US Presidency? Are expectations so low for Hillary Clinton's nastiness that she gets away with slurring her Democratic rival? The old truism, "you get the leaders you deserve" - is it self-fulfilling? Is Barack Obama constitutionally capable of tit for tat?

As president, Obama would set a new tone in US politics. He refuses to demonise his political opponents; deep in his heart, I believe, he doesn't even think of them as opponents. It would not be surprising to find Republicans and independents prominent in his administration. Obama wants to know what ideas are likely to work, not whether a Democrat or a Republican is responsible for them.

In his book The Audacity of Hope, he asks for a politics that accepts "the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point". Remarking that ordinary Americans "don't always understand the arguments between right and left, conservative and liberal", Obama wants politicians "to catch up with them".

In short, Obama's own approach is insistently charitable. He assumes decency and good faith on the part of those who disagree with him. And he wants to hear what they have to say. Both in substance and in tone, Obama questions the conventional political distinctions between "the left" and "the right". To the extent that he is attracting support from Republicans and independents, it is largely for this reason.

While Barack Obama has penned The Audacity of Hope, the New York Times' Gail Collins opines that Hillary Clinton only understands the "audacity of audacity." Pyhrric victories the Democrats do not need. Here's a reader's comment (my translation) on a "Le Monde" article on the asymmetric (in terms of playing dirty) Clinton-Obama campaigns:

The Democrats' ability to shoot themselves in the foot, not just with a single round but with an entire magazine, is mind-boggling. Americans have a choice between a woman, a black man, and an old man. The odds are that they'll choose the latter.

The biggest danger to the Democrats is that if voters - especially the millions of young Obama supporters who have helped set primary turnout records - are turned off by internecine warfare, those who can still bring themselves to vote in November may go for an above-the-fray John McCain.